@Error of Logic: She never signed a contract, but she once ate poison berries without checking to see if they were safe for consumption and she has a habit of trespassing; including hanging out on Mel's ceiling. She's a good friend, but she has some weird hobbies.

That's the thing, thinking that a kid is good looking means you are aware that he/she is a kid, i'm talking about 14/15 year olds that confuse you, happened to me a couple times, I see a hot woman at a bar, I start talking to her, and BAM! she mentions she is a cheerleader at Maine North High School (of course i used The Breakfast Club's high school as an example, a movie reference she wouldn't understand )

When I say 'kid', I mean anyone under the age of 18.
.
And of course I wouldn't get the reference. I know of the movie, but have never seen it - as teen drama-comedies were never my kind of movie.

That's what i also meant with 'kid'. We don't find kids sexually attractive, but that's only when we know they're kids, because there are some kids that look like adults like the girl i met, I honestly thought she was 22 and then she mentions she is a high school cheerleader.

About the Breakfast Club reference, I was saying that the girl wouldn't understand the reference, not you.

Age of consent laws vary widely from country to country, and often there are differences inside a given country too... but, on the whole, I'm rather optimistic about the future. The feeling I get when I read the news is that the world is changing in a progressive, sex-positive way. Even in conservative America things are developing for the better. Let me give you an example: the state of Delaware. I lived there for some time, and I'm familar with the legal framework.

Ages of consent in America are decided by the states, not the federal government, and range from 16 to 18 years old. Delaware is listed as having an age of consent of 18, which would put it in the conservative end of the spectrum. However, reality is quite different. The actual laws are much more punctilious and detailed than one would imagine.

Before the age of 12, you are not allowed to consent to sex. This is reasonable, as children of 11 or less are most likely not even pubescent. When you turn 12 years old, sex becomes legal... as long as your partner is not more than 4 years older than you. At the age of 16, you can have sex with young adults of 30 years old or less. And when you reach 18 you can have sex with any older person regardless of age difference! So, in a nutshell, putting everything together, this is how it works:

01) If you're 11 or less, no sex for you. No sir, no way, no how.
02) When you turn 12, you can have sex... but your partner must be 12 to 16 in age.
03) At 13, you can have sex with anyone aged 12 to 17.
04) At 14, you can have sex with anyone aged 12 to 18.
05) At 15, you can have sex with anyone aged 12 to 19.
06) At 16, huzzah, your sexual horizons expand a whole lot! You can now do the naughty with anyone aged 12 to 30!
07) At 17, your sexual horizons contract a little: you lose the 12-year-olds. You can only have sex with people aged 13 to 30.
08) At 18, you lose the 13-year-olds... but as of now and forever onwards, there is no more upper limit to the age of your sexual partners.
09) At 19, you lose the 14-year-olds.
10) At 20, and for the next ten years, the age of your lovers must be between 16 and whatever the maximum life expectancy for a human being is.
11) At 31, bam, you lose the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. But the good news are that you won't need anymore a calculator to determine if you can shag someone or not: from now on and for the rest of your life, your legal sex partners will be those aged between 18 and no upper limit whatsoever.

It's not a bad system. You can tell the lawmakers put a lot of effort in negotiating something that would balance rights with responsibilities, and tried to come up with a text that would be more or less acceptable for everyone. But, really... reading what I just wrote, I cannot but think: was there really a need to complicate things so much!? How much easier this would be if they just set the age of consent at 13, the age of late puberty, and be done with it... sigh...

We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

It's not a bad system. You can tell the lawmakers put a lot of effort in negotiating something that would balance rights with responsibilities, and tried to come up with a text that would be more or less acceptable for everyone. But, really... reading what I just wrote, I cannot but think: was there really a need to complicate things so much!?

Hey, I just thought of something! Going by Delaware rules, Abby (human Abby, before magical succubification) and the other little girls from her class can shag Chris Montana! Can you picture that? Seven rounds with the greatest teen stud in Montréal, far out! Talk about a "first time" to remember...

Complex as they are, there's a lot of good in these laws, indeed there is.

We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

Well Romeo laws exist. So you aren't a sex offender if you turn 18 but your girlfriend you've been with for 2 years just turned 16(A 14 year old and 16 year old dating doesn't seem particularly out there).

I guess the thing I'm confused by is why are you so.... eager to imagine 12 year olds fucking? Because going by your post up top? Abby is nowhere near 17 mentally. It just seems odd to care about having sex with minors once you reach a certain age. Hell, I could technically legally have sex with a 17 year old... but what reason would I have to do so when there are far more attractive women my age. Or older. Or at the very least early to mid 20s where she's likely to know what the hell she's doing in the first place(Abby doesn't even know she can get pregnant, you think she's going to know anything relevant when it comes to sex?).

Sparking now, search within your soul to find the answer!Push yourself to the edge, give 1000%!

Since you asked politely (quite unlike a lot of people I usually ignore) I'm going to tell you... but I don't think you'll like the answer. Here goes.

Sociology and anthropology in recent years have extensively investigated the political discourse about childhood in American society, and found it to be toxic. The work of researchers such as Henry Jenkins or James Kincaid has completely changed our outlook on how our culture defines what it means to be a child, how adult institutions impact on children's lives, and how children construct their personal and social identities.

The myth of childhood innocence, as James Kincaid notes, empties the child of its own political agency, so that it may more perfectly fulfill the symbolic demands we make upon it. The innocent child wants nothing, desires nothing, and demands nothing -- except, perhaps, its own innocence. Kincaid critiques the idea that childhood innocence is something pre-existing -- an "eternal" condition -- which must be "protected." Rather, childhood innocence is a cultural myth that must be "brutally inculcated and enforced" upon children.

This dominant conception of childhood innocuity and inoffensiveness presumes, to quote Henry Jenkins (in "The Innocent Child And Other Modern Myths"), that children exist in a space beyond, above, outside of the sexual and political; we imagine them to be noncombatants who we protect from the harsh realities of the adult world, including the mud-splattering of social conflict. Yet, in reality, almost every major social battle of the 20th century has been fought on the backs of our children, from the economic reforms of the Progressive Era (which sought to protect immigrant children from the sweat-shop owners) and the social readjustments of the Civil Rights Era (which often circulated around the images of black and white children playing together) to contemporary anxieties about the digital revolution (which often depicts the wide-eyed child as subject to the corruptions of cybersex and porn websites).

Until recently, cultural anthropology has said little about the politics of the child. We all have a lot invested in seeing childhood as banal and transparent, as without any concealed meanings of the sort that ideological critics might excavate, as without any political agency of the kinds that ethnographers of subcultures document, as without any sexuality that queer and feminist critics might investigate. Carey Bazalgette and David Buckingham identify a "division of labor" within academic research, which subjects youth culture to intense sociological scrutiny while seeing childhood as a fit subject only for developmental theory. Children are understood as "asocial or perhaps, pre-social," resulting in an emphasis on their "inadequacies," "immaturity" and "irrationality," on their need for protection and nurturing. Because developmental theory focuses on defining and encouraging "normative" development, it does not provide us tools for critiquing the cultural power invested in childhood innocence. While we often celebrate the "resistant" behaviors of youth cultures as subversive and revolutionary, the "misbehavior" of children is almost never understood in similar terms, and usually portrayed as deviant behavior that should be repressed. This historic split has started to break down over the past twenty years, as more and more cultural scholars examine childhood. A growing literature depicts children as active agents and creators who use the cultural resources provided them as raw materials that must be resisted, transformed or redefined for the sake of constructing their own notion of identity.

The representation of a girl of 12 or 13 years claiming back her stolen agency, acting on her own volition, embracing her stigmatized sensuality and engaging in sexual activities with a boy four years older who is also the alpha and most desirable male of his high school conveys a singularly powerful, extremely positive message. And I guess that's my reason.

We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

Hey, I just thought of something! Going by Delaware rules, Abby (human Abby, before magical succubification) and the other little girls from her class can shag Chris Montana! Can you picture that? Seven rounds with the greatest teen stud in Montréal, far out! Talk about a "first time" to remember...

Complex as they are, there's a lot of good in these laws, indeed there is.

No, seriously - what is wrong with you?

And yes, I read your above post. The writers you mentioned didn't change 'our' outlook; they changed 'your' outlook on underaged sex. You honestly come off sounding like someone advocating for pedophilia and define everyone who disagrees with your mindset as being close minded, sex fearing puritans.